chalice his blood if they acknowledge him not to be the son of the maker of the world Tertullian who liv'd in the year 230 sayes thus in his book of the resurrection of the flesh the flesh is wash'd that the soul may be clean'd the flesh is anointed that the soul may be consecrated the flesh eateth of the body and blood of Christ that the soul may be â—urish'd Origâ—nâ—s who liv'd in the same age sayes thus hom 7th in Eum speakiÌ„g of the old law thâ—n the manna was meat in figure but now the flesh of God is meat inspecie as himself sayes my flesh is mâ—at in deed and in his 5th Hom in diversa loca Evangely speaking of the Centurian he sayes the follwing words whâ—n you receive the holy meat and uncorrupted banquet when you receive the bread and cup of â—ief you eat drinke the body blood of the Lord then the Lord inters into your house you therefore humbling yourself immitate this Centurian sayâ— o Lord I am not worthy that thou shoâ—â—est inter into â—y house St Cypriaâ— who liv'd in same Century in his 5th ser de Lapsis sayes thus Violence is infer'd to his body blood they offend now more the Lord wiâ—â— their hands mouâ—h than when thâ— deny'd the Lord and in his ser oâ— the Lords supper he also sayes the following words the doctrin of this Sacrament is streange â— the Evangelical schooles publiâ—h'd 〈◊〉 this doctrine it first appear'd to thâ— world by Christ the teacher thereof thâ— Christians should drinke blood who drinking is most strictly forbidden â—â— the Authority of the old law but â—â— Gospel commends to drinke it Befoâ—â— I shall proceed further I muâ—â— take notice of St. Cyprian's words positively affirming that this Doctrine of the real presence has been first taught by Christ and his Disciples and also that Christians are commanded to drinke blood which was prohibited by the old law for the old lawâ— did not prohibit to drinke blood in figure or in remembrance for the Jewes did drinke the blood of Christ figuratively in drinking the water which flow'd our of the Rocke therefore that which was prohibited by the old law was only to drinke true and real blood but St. Cyprian clearly affirms that the Gospel commaÌ„ds the Christians to drinke that which was prohibited by the old law therefore St. Cyprian affirâ— that the Christians are commanâ—ed by the Gospel to drinke tâ—â— and real blood and consequenâ— not in figure as my adversaâ— would faine perswade St. Hilaâ—us who liv'd in the 4th Centâ—ry in his 18th book of the Tâ—nity says thus If the word be tâ—â— incarnate we do truly receive the wâ—â— flesh of the flesh blood 's â—â—â— there is noe roome left for being doubt for by the Lord 's own confesâ— and by our faith it is truly flesh truly blood let us read what is wriâ—â— and let us understand what we râ—â— and then we will perform the dutâ— perfect faith for according to the tural truth of Christ in us what â—â— we learn unless we learn it fâ—om â— we learn it imprudently impiously fâ—r he said my flâ—â—h is meat in deed c. St. Cyril of Ierusalem who liv'd in the sâ—me Century Catech 4 sayâ—â— the following words This of St. Paul's Doctrine can sufficiently make ye most certain coâ—cerning the divine mysteries seeing Christ himself so affirms sayes of the bread this is mâ— body whâ— afterwards can presume to doubt the same also saying confirming this is my blood who I say can doubt say that it is not his blood St. Ambrose who also liv'd in the same Century in his book de Mysterys Initiandis c 9th sayes the following words Perhaps you may say I see the contrary how can you affirm to me that I can receive Christ's body this now we are to prove therefore wâ— use great examples that we may prove this not to be what nature form'd but what benediction consecrated the benediction to be of more power than the naturâ—s because even â—he very nature is converted by the benediction Moses threw a rod which he converted into a serpent aftâ—rwards he tooke the serpent's tail converted the same into a rod therefore you see the nature of the serpent of â—he rod to have been twiâ—e chang'd by a Prophetical benediction If human benediction be of such power that it can change nature what do we say to the divine consecration where the very words of the Lord our Saviour do worke for the SacrameÌ„â— which you receive is perfected by the words of Christ what if Elias's words were of such force that they cou'd draw fiâ—e out of heâ—ven will not Christs wâ—rds be able to change the nature of the elements Of all the workes in the world you have read because he said they were made he commanded they were created therefore Christ's words which cou'd make that which was not of nothing can they not change these things which are into that which they were not for it is not less to give things new beings than to change their natures but why doe wâ— use arguments but let us use his own examples prove the truth of this mysterie by the IncarnatioÌ„'s example did the course of nature take place when the Lord was born of Mary it is manifest that the Virgin conceiv'd contrary to the order of nature this body which we perform is of the Virgin Why do you iâ—quire here thâ— câ—uâ—se of 〈…〉 Châ—â—st's body when the Lord himself wâ—â—â—orâ— of the Virgin beyond the coâ—rsâ— of nature Surâ—ly the true flesh of Christ was crucifi'd buri'd truly thâ—n the sâ—crament iâ— of that same flesh Tho' what I have already produc'd of this eminent Doctor 's Authority might satisfie any impartial reader yet I will adde these other Authorityes of his confirming the same in his 4th book de Sacram c 5. he sayes thus The Lord Iesus Christ declar'd unto us that we receive his own body blood why shu'd we doubt of his Authority testimoney and in his 6th book c 1 he also sayes thus as our Lord Iesus Christ is the true son of God even so it is true flesh which we receive as himself said St. Gregory Nazâ—anzen who liv'd in the same age in his 2 Oration de Paschaâ—e sayes the followings words eate the body drinke the blood with-out confusion doubt be constant firm stedfast you need not be any thing troubl'd in mind for the adversary's discourse St Ephrem who liv'd in the year 365 in his book de Natura Dei minima Scrutanda c 5 sayes the following words why do you track-out unsearchable things If you search curiously these things new you will not be call'd faithfull but curious be faithfull innocent partake of the immaculate body of thy Lord with full faith being sure that you do eat the intire lambe the mysteries of Christ are everlasting fire do
and I prove the first part of the Anticedent by our Saviour's own words Iohn c 6 v 51 where he sayes thus I am the living bread which came down from heaven if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever and the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world But then the Iewes wanting true faith said one to an other how can this man give uâ— his flesh to eate v 52. certainly then our Saviour who came to this world to instruct and leade us out of all darknesse to the true light hearing the Iewes murmuring so and doubting of what he said to be true wou'd explain the aforesaid words if he had any mystical meaning but he was so far from so doing that he confirm'd and repeated them again over and overâ— as is manifest by the 53 54 c. v where we read the following words then Iesus said unto them verily verily I say unto ye except ye eate the flesh of the son of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in ye whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him up at the last day for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I 〈◊〉 him as the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father so he that eateth me even he shall live by me This is the bread which came down from heaven not as your Fathers did eate â—anna and are dead he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever So that every faithfull sincere Christian may plainly understand that if our Saviour then had not meant that he was to give his own true flesh and blood to be really eaten and dranke that he wou'd not so proceed in confirming what he said in the begining and also that he wou'd not suffer his own disciples to part with-out declaring his mind to them as he did often before when he spoâ—e in parables neither wou'd he declare at his last supper that he gave to his discples his own body and blood saying thus Take eate this his my bâ—dy and he tooke the cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying drinke ye all of it for his is my blood of the new testâ—meâ—t which shall be shâ—d for many for the remission of sinnes Matt c 26 v 26 27 28 I leave it to all faithfull Christians seriously to be consider'd whether Christ gave only figuratively his own body and blood for the remission of our sinnes or his reall body and blood If he gave them really for our Salvation he also gave them really tâ— his disciples as his own wordâ— do manifestly affirme to deny which is of no less consequence than to charge Christ with untruth or at lest that he had not words significant to explain his intention which is rash and impious to judge of his infinite power therefore all Christians are oblig'd not to mistrust of the truth of Christ's words or doubt of their literal sence in the aforesaid text for being we acknowledge that Christ is omnipotent and consequently that it is in his Power to make of the bread and wine his own flesh and blood by his divine benediction we ought not to doubt of what he said to be true and if in case he had not exprest so plainly his mind unto us concerning this mysterie we ought to believe it firmly by St Paul's testimonye â—ae Corinth c 11 v 23 24 c. saying thus for I have receiv'd of the Lord that which also I deliver'd uâ—to ye that â—he Lord Jesus the same night in which he wâ—â— betrayed â—ooke bread and when he had given thankes he brake and said take eate this is my body which shall be â—â—liver'd for ye thiâ— do ye in remembranâ—e of mâ— afteâ— the â—ame maÌ„ner also he tooke the câ—p when he had supped saying this cup is the new testament in my blood this doe ye as often as ye drinke it in remembraâ—ce of me for as often as ye eate thâ—s brâ—ad and drinke this cup ye do shew the Lords death till be come whosoever shall â—at this bread â—â— drinke this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the â—oâ—d By which words St Paul openly declares that Christ gave his own body blood to his disciples at his last supper and also he affirms himself to have been taught this doctrine by the Lord and that he deliever'd the same to the Corinthians that there by he might perswade them not to doubt of what he said to be true but to firmly believe the reall presence beâ—ng it was the Lords doctrine delieuer'd unto him in order to teach it to the Christians Now let us heare the Authorityes of the holy Fathers Doctors of the Primitive Church wherewith I shall prove the second Part of the antecedent St. Ignatius the Apostles Disciple in his Epist to those of Smyrna ciâ—ed by Theodoret in his â— Dialogue sayes thus they â—â—mit not the Eucharists and oâ—lations because they confess not the Euchâ—râ—st to be the flesâ— of our Saviour who suffer'd for ouâ— sinneâ— Let the reader take â—otice of those heretickes against whose principles St Ignatius speaks in the aforsaid text for they rejected the Eucharist lest they would be forc'd to confess that Christ had true flesh but if the Eucharist had not then been believ'd to be Christ's â—rue flesh those heretiks could have no kind of reason to re-ject it for they did noâ— deny the figure or Image of Chrisâ— but what they deny'd was thaâ— Christ had true flesh The like argumenâ— may be form'd against the Jewes admiration hearing the word of Christ Iohn c 6 v. 51 c. for if then the jewes would believe that Christ was to give his flesh only in figure and remembrance they would have no reasoÌ„ to murmur or to mistrust the truth of Christ's words so that it manifestly appears that the Jewes suppos'd that Christ meant his true flesh and also that those heretiks of the prmitive Church believ'd and acknowledge that it was then some of the Catholickâ— Doctrine to believe that Christ's true flesh was really present in the holy Eucharist St. â—â—ustin Martyr who liv'd in the year 150 in his 2 Apology to Antoninus sayes thus we do not receive this as common bread or as common drinke but as the son of God Iesus Christ ouâ— Saviour inâ—â—rnate had flesh and blood for our salvation so are we taught that thâ— Eucharist is the flesh blood of the same Iesus incarnate St Irenaeus who liv'd in the same Century speaking of the hereticks of the Synagogue who deny'd Christ to have been the son of God sayes the following words in his 4th book c 34 how can they be assured the bread in which thankes are given to be the body of our Lord the
not rashly searâ—â— them over â—est you should burn in their search St. Epiphanius who liv'd in the year 370 in his book nam'd Ancoratus sayes thus We see thaâ— our Saviour tooke in his hands as thâ— Evangelist hath when he gave thanks he said this is my body none mistrusts his words for he whâ— dose not believe it to be his true fleâ—h falls from grace life and in a nother place cited by the Fathers of the 7th General Council in the 6th Action he sayes the following words Never shall â—o find our Lord or his Apostles or the Fathers saying that the unbloody sacrifice which is offer'd by the Priests is an Image but his very body blood St. Hierome who liv'd in the year 390 Epist to Hedib sayes thus but let us know that the bread which the Lord brake gave to his Disciples was the Lord our Saviours body himself saying to them take ye eat this is my body St Chrysostom who liv'd the year 398 Hon â—1 in Matt sayes the following words he who bestowed his own life for you why will he sâ—orn to give you his own body therefore let us hâ—arken the Priests how noble how admirable is that thing which is granted unto us he has given us his own flesh c. He also sayes thus Hom 53 Let us believe God let us not contradict him altho' what he sayes may seem strange to our sense imagination for it surpasâ—es our sense reason I beseech you what may we suppose of his words in all things chiefly in mysteries not only considering â—hese things which layes before us but also his words for we cannot be deceiv'd by them but our senses may easilie be deceiv'd his words cannot be false therefore because he said this is my body let us he convinc'd by noe ambiguity but let us believe perceive this with the eyes of our understanding O how many now sayes I wou'd fain seâ— his face countenance I wou'd wish to see his garments therefore you see him you feele him you eat him you desire to see his garmeÌ„ts truly he deliver'd himself to you not only that you may see him but also that you may touch him intertain him in yourself In his 3. book de sacerdotio he sayes thus he that â—its above with his Father even in the same instant of time is touch'd by the hands of all gives himself to all those who are willing to receive him whereas Christ leaving his flesh to us yet ascending to heaven there also he hath it More of St. Chrysostom's Authorityes plainly confirmiÌ„g the same may be seen in his 8â— Hom. on Matt. 45th on John 3 on St. Paus's Epist to the Ephes in his 2. to those of Antioch and in his 6th book de Sacerdotio St. Augustin who liv'd the year 420 expounding that of the 33. Psal he was carri'd in his own hands puts the question inquiring how can these words be understod aÌ„swers sayiÌ„g thus we cannot find this in David according to the litteral sense but we may find it in Christ for Câ—râ—s◠〈…〉 in his own haâ—ds wâ—e gâ—v◠〈…〉 body he said thi◠〈…〉 he caâ—rid that bâ—d◠〈…〉 In his â— book 〈…〉 legis eâ— Prophet c 9 he sayes â—he following wâ—rds wâ— receive the Mediator of God man Ieâ—us Christ with a fuâ—l heart mouth gâ—vâ—ng us his own flâ—sh blood to be 〈◊〉 dranke Here the Reader may take notice of the word mouth that thereby he may understand S. Augustin to have openly declar'd that we do not receive the flesh blood of Christ in figure and by faith only as my adversary believes which may be further confirm'd by S. Augustin's own words in his 2. ser de verbis Apostoli where he sayes thus we understâ—nd the true master divine redeemer kiÌ„d Saviour recommending unto us our price his own â—lood for he spoke of his own body blood More of S. Augustin's Authorityes proving the Real presence may be seen in his 11th 26th 27th 31 Treatise in John in his commeÌ„tary on the 98th psal in his 2. book agaiÌ„st PetiliaÌ„s letters in his 17th book of the City of God c. 20. In his 3. book or the Trinity c. 4. 10. in his book super Leviticum â— 57. In his 2. ser de Temp. anâ— in several other places which wouâ—d be too tedious to produce here therefore I will conclude only with the two following Authorityes S. Cyrâ—ll of Alexandria who liv'd in the year 430 in his Epist to Nestor which Epist was aprov'd of by the Fathers of the General Council of Ephesiâ— sayes thus so immediatly we come to the mystical blessings we are sanctifi'd being partakers of the holy body precious blood of Christ the Redeemer of us all not taking it to be common flesh God forbid But made the proper flesh of the word himself that â—s to say of the son of God It was defin'd in the 18. Can. of the first General Council of Nice That Deacons who have no power to offer sacrifice ought not to give the body blood of Christ to Priests who have that power All which proofs do evidently make-out that it was alwayes believ'd iÌ„ the Primitive Church that Christ's body and blood were really and substancially preseÌ„t in the holy sacrament and consequently that our Saviour had no mystical or figurative meaning in the institution of this sacrament So that it is to be admir'd what pretence can my adversary aleadge for denying the real presence If he has not a mind to deny all mysteries that surpasles his own weake understanding if so he may be the same rule Presume to deny that of the blessed Trinity Incarnation ResurrectioÌ„ c. for they surpasse his understanding and capacity as well as this of the reall presence Chap. 6 Proving that the holy Eucharist was ador'd worshipp'd by those of the Primitâ—ve Church If it was lawfull to fall down and worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour when he was in this world t is also lawfull to fall-down and worship the holy Eucharist with Godly honour but it was lawfull to falldown worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour when he was in this world therefore t is lawfull to fall down worship the holy Eucharist with Godly hoÌ„our The coÌ„sequence is most certain as we shall see hereafter and the minor is manifest Mat. c. 2 v 11. c. 14. v. 33. Jo. c 9 v. 38. as for The major it may be prov'd tâ—us the same Saviour Jesus Christ who was worship'd in this world is really substâ—ntially present in the holy Sacrament as I have prov'd in my answer to the adversarys 5th point and will confirm it in my answer to his 7th therefore if â—t was lawfull to full-down and worship our Saviour Iesus Christ with Godly honour wheÌ„ he was in this world t is also lawfull to fall-down and worship tâ—e holy Eucharist with
Godly honour Tho' the aforesaid argument might be a sufficient answer to this point yet I will produce the following Authorityes to confirm the same St Denis the Areeopagite who liv'd in the Apostles time in his book de Eccles. Hier. c. 3 makes mention of the IncenciÌ„g of the altar of the Priest washing his hands of â—â—â— elevation of the blessed Host â— the adoration thereof Origines whâ— liv'd in the 3. CeÌ„tury in his 3. Hoâ— in Exod. sayes thus I design to â—â—monish ye with the examples of â—â—â— own religion ye know who are accâ—â—â—m'd to be present at the diviâ— mysteries when ye receive the Lorâ— body how with all caution â—â— veneration ye take heed least â— smal particle of it should fall down leâ—â— any thing of the consecrated gift shâ—â— slip out for ye belive your selves â—â—â— guilty and ye rightly believe if â— thing of it wou'd fall by your negligâ—â—ce St Ambrose who liv'd in thâ— 4th Century in his 3. book of thâ— Holy Ghost c. 12. expounding thâ— of the 98. Psal where we aâ— bid to worship the footstool of his feeâ— sayes thus therefore by the footstool the earth is understood and by the earth the flesh of Christ which also eveÌ„ at this day we adore in mysteries and which the Apostles ador'd in the Lord Jesus S. Chrysostome who also liv'd in the 4 Century in his â— hom on S Pau'ls Epist to the Ephesians sayes thus we speake of the body and of him who differs nothing from it how many are made partakers of that body how many tastes of his blood remember that it is the body blood of him who refides above the heavens who is humbly ador'd by the Angels He also sayes the following words hom 24th on St. Pauls first Epist to the Corinthians the wisemen regarded thîs body laâ—ing â—n the â—angeâ— the iâ—pioâ—â—â—aâ—â—arouâ— men having leâ—t thâ—i◠〈◊〉 tâ—ey home made along voyâ— when they aâ—riv'd wiâ—h grâ—at â—â— trembâ—ing they worâ—hipp d â— let us therefore the Citizens of heâ—â— immitate the barbarous people do not see him in the mâ—ngeâ— but onâ— aâ—tâ—â— not a woman keepiâ—g him â—â— the Priest holding him let us theâ—fore weaken our selves anâ— be grâ—â— afraid let us shew a great deal nâ— reveâ—ece than these barbarous peopleâ— for open the gates of heaven and lâ—â— and then you will see that whiâ—â— said to be true for that which iâ— tâ—â— most precious and most to be ador'â— aâ—l thinks I do â—hâ—w you the same â—â— on earth even as in a Kiâ—gs palâ—â— that which is most magnificeÌ„â— of thiÌ„gs not the â—alls no◠〈…〉 â—t the Kingâ— â—t that yâ—◠〈…〉 do nâ—t hâ—w yoâ— thâ— Aâ—gâ—lâ— Arâ—â—geâ—s oâ— he heaves bâ—t tâ—â—ir masâ—er â—â— have percâ—â—v'd hâ—w â—ou 〈◊〉 on the â—â—â—h that which is most excellent â—est to be regarded of aâ—l things neiâ—her do â—ou only see hiâ— but aâ—so yoâ—â—â—â—h him you eaâ— him after you â—at him you return home clean puâ—ifie your soul prepare your mind against the receiving of these mysteriesâ—â—or if a King's son wiâ—h a neat preâ—ious â—â—own had been giveâ— to you â—o â—e carri'd you wou'd slight all the thiÌ„gs â—â— the world but now receiving not â—he son of a worldly King but the only â—egottn son of Goâ— c. St Augustin who liv'd in the begining of the 5th Century expounding the 9â— Psal sayes that the earth is thâ— Lords footstool according to thâ— of Isaiah c 66 v. 1. saying thuâ— the heaven is my throne the earâ— is my footstool and he inquires hoâ— is it lawfull to adore the earth with-out impiety and then hâ— sayes the following words being troubl'd in mind I do turn myself Christ because I do seeke him I find how the earth is ador'd with-out impiety the footstool of his feet is ador'd for he receiv'd earth from the earth because the flesh is of the earth he receiv'd flesh from the flesh of Mary because he walk'd here in that flesh gave us the same flesh to eate for our safety none eats of that flesh if he adores it not before t is found-out after what 〈…〉 â—â—otstool of â—â— Lord may 〈…〉 not only â—â—t we doe not 〈…〉 it but â—â— we siâ—n in not a â—oriâ—g it More â— S. Augustin's Authorâ—â—yes may â— seen to the same purpose in â—s 118. Epist c. 3. and in his 120 â—pist c. â—7 which I omit to produâ—â— least I shu'd be too troubleâ—â—â—e to the reader Chap. 7 Proving that TransubstaÌ„tiaâ—â— was believ'd by those of the Primiâ—â—ve Church I shall only here enlarge those â—â—â—ts of scripture produc'd in my â—nswer to the 5th point with the â—â—llowing Authorityes of the â—â—ly Fathers and Doctors of the â—rimitive Church Tertullian who liv'd in the begining of the 3. Cenâ—ury in his 4. book agaiâ— Mâ—â—cian c. 4â— saâ—es 〈◊〉 â—â— bâ—ead taken and distributed â—â— his â—â—sciples he maâ—e hâ—s owâ— body St. 〈◊〉 martyr and S Iâ—eneus who boâ—â— liv'd before â—ertulliaÌ„ do affâ—â— the same as the reader may see â—â— their Authorityes produc'd â—â— my answer to the 5. point S â—â—prian who liv'd the year 25â—â— his sermon of the Lord's supâ—â—â—ayes thus the â—read which ouâ— gave to his Disciples being changâ— not in shâ—pe but in natûre bâ— the â—â—nipotency of the word was made â—leâ—â— S Cyrill of Jerusalem who liv'd in the 4. Century speaking â—â— Christ in his 4. Catech. sayes thâ—â— followig words he did once in Caâ—â— of Galelee only by his will turn water â—nto wine which is near blood aâ—d â—hall he not be wâ—rthy to be believ'd â—o uâ— that he tuâ—n'd wine into blood â—â—erefore let us receive the body and â—â—ood of Christ with all assurance for â—nder the shape of bread the body is given to you and under the shape of â—ine the blood is given therefore let us not consider it as bare bread and bare wine for it is the body and blood of Christ according to the Lord 's own words for altho' your sense wou'd not represent this to you nevertheless let faith confirm you you ought not to judge these things by the taste therefoâ—e knowing this with all certainly holding the bread which is seen â—y us not to be bread altho' the taste perceives it to be bread but to be the body of Christ the wine which is seeâ—â—â— altho' it may seem to the pallâ—â— be wine notwithstandiÌ„g it is not â—â— but the blood of Christ Let the â—â—der be Pleas'd to take notice â—â— plainly St Cyprian affirms by â—â— former words that the substaâ—â—â— of the bread wine is dissolâ—â— at the intrance of Christ's bâ—â— and blood and also how St. Cyâ—â— bids us not to judge of this myâ—â—â—rie according to the apprehensioâ— of our senses but to firmly believe the true and real presence of Christ's body and blood undeâ— the shape of bread and wine that is to say under the accidents which the bread and wine had before cheir
substance was chang'd St. Gregorie Nysen who liv'd the year 380. in his Oration term'd Cateehetica c. 370. sayes thus I do also now rightly believe the sanctifi'd bread to be chang'd into the body of Christ and these things he bestows transelementing the thiÌ„gs that are seen into it by the vertue of his blessings which words do plainly make-out that St. Gregorie positively believ'd the Transubstantiation otherwise he wou'd not have said these words St Ambrose who siv'd about the same time in his 4th book of sacraments c. 4th sayes thus perhaps you may say my bread is ordinary but the bread is bread before the words of consecration but when consecration comes it is the flesh of Christ a nother convincing Authority of St. Ambrose may be seeÌ„ in my answer to the 5th point St Gaudentius who also liv'd in the 4th age in his 2. Treatis on Exod. sayes the following words the Cream and Lord of natures who brought forth the bread out of the earth and again of the bread because he can do it promis'd it made his proper body and who of the water made wine made of the wine his own blood S. Chrysostome who liv'd in the year 398. in his 83. hom on S. Matt. speaking of this mysterie sayes thus these are not the works of human power which the Lord perform'd in that supper the same also offers now the sacrifice he performs we enjoy the office of ministers truly t is he who sanctifies and chaâ—ges these things And in his Homily of the Eucharist in â—â—â—aenys he also sayes the following words do you see the bread do you see the wine do they go like other meat to the privy the Lord forbid you ought not to imagin so for eveÌ„ as after wax is apply'd to the fire nothing of the substance remains even so consider here the mysteries the substance of the body to be consum'd that is to say that the breads substaÌ„ce is annichilated when Christ's body inters under those accidents which formerly the bread had before it was annulâ—d St. Augustin in his â—8 ser de verbis Apostoliâ— sayes thus I told ye that the bread which is offer'd is call'd bread before the words of Christ but as soone as Christ's words are pronounc'd then t is not call'd bread but it is call'd the body And in the book of the IncarnatioÌ„ of Christ we read the following words t is not to be believ'd that the â—ubstance of the bread or wine remains but that the bread is cheang'd into Christ's body and the wine into his blood c St. Cyrill of Alexandria in his Epist to Calosyrius and Eusebius Emissenus Ser. de corpore Domini do affirm the same All which Authorityes do evidently make out the thing signifi'd by the word Transubstantiation that is to say the real change of the substance of bread and wine aâ— the intrance of Christ's flesh blood to have been alwayes believ'd and maintain'd by the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church so that it plainly appears that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not broughtin by the Church of Rome either in the 6th 7th 8th or 9th age or by the Council of Latran in the year 1215 as some of the preteÌ„nded reformers do falsly aleadge It is not worth my while to answer here the Adversary's 8th point for it is sufficiently answer'd by what I have produc'd in my answers to the three last points for t is manifest that all those who contradicted in the Primitive Church the aforsaid Doctrine that they were esteem'd and beliv'd by the holy Catholicke Churh to have been notorious heretickes as I will shew in the later end of this worke Chap. 8. Proving the use and veneration of Images in the Primitive Church If it be lawfull to worship other creatures t is also lawfull to worship Images but t is lawfull to worship other creatures therefore t is lawfull to worship Images the major is manifest for the saâ—e honour which the scripture forbids to be given to the one forbids it to be given to the other as I will shew hereafter therefore if it be lawfull to worship other creatures t is also lawfull to worshâ—p Images whose making and puting up in Churches is commanded by the holy scripture as evidently appears by the following texts Exodus c 25 v. 18. 19. 22 where we read that God commanded two Câ—erubins to be made of goâ—d which were to be set up on both sides of the Arke before which the people were to pray and promis'd that there he wou'd meet with Moses we read also Numb c. 21 v. 8 and 9 that the Lord commanded Moses to make a fiery serpent and to set it up on a pole and that it shu'd come to passe that if any one would be bitten by a serpent that he wou'd recover when he wou'd looke upon the serpent of brasse more examples may be seen in the 3 book of Kings c. 6. v. 35. c. 7. v. 25. 29. and 36. c. 10. v. 19. in the 2. book of Chronicles c 3. v. 10 and 14. where we read that Salomon caus'd at several times Images to be made but we can never find out that ever he was reprehended for so doing Now let us see is it lawfull to worship other creatures that thereby the minor may be prov'd Lot seeing the Angels bowâ—â— himself with his face to wards the ground Gen. c. 19. v. 1. Baâ—aam did the same seeing the Angel of the Lord Numb c 22 v. 31. and also Joshua as may be seen Joshua c. 5. v. 14. Saul seeing the soul of Samuel stoop'd with his face towards the grouÌ„d and â—bowed himself as may be seen in the first book of Kings c. 28 v. 14. and in the 3. book of Kings c 18 v 7. we read that Abadiah fell on his face and worshipp'd Elyah The sons of the Prophets seeing Elisha they came to meet him and bowed themselves to the ground before him as may be seen in the 4th book of Kings c. 2. v. 15. we also read in the 2. c. v. 46. of Daniel that the King Nebuchad-nezzar fell upon his face and worshipp'd Daniel and commanded that they shu'd offer an oblation and sweetodours unto him Chirist approv'd of the making and exalting of the brazen serpent and owens it to have been the type and figure of himself exalted on the crosse â—ohn c. 3 v 14. S. Iohn the Baptist worshipp'd the very latehet of our Saviours shooe the latchet of whose shooes saith he I am not worthy to unloose John c. 1. v. 27. for which fact St Augustin on that place concluds him to have been full of the holy Ghost the Patriarch Jacob ador'd the top of Joâ—eph's rod a signe or Image of his regal power as we read in S Pauls Epist to the Hebrews c. 1 v 2â— the Primitive Christians venerated the very shadow and garments of S Peter and Paul and receiv'd thereby speciall benefit as may be seen in
aforsaid do expressly testifiâ— and also Sozomenus in his booâ— c. â— Under whose wings did Sâ— Chrysostome fly for justice beit depos'd by Theophilus and hâ— adherences but under the winâ— of Innocentius the first as appeaâ— by St Chrysostome's 1. 2. Epiâ—â— to the same To whom did Forâ—â— naâ—us Felix being depos'd Africk appeal but to Corneliâ— Pope of Rome as St. Cyprian â—â— his first book Epist 3 declares To whom did Basilideâ— appeal but to Pope Stephen as St. Cyprian testifies Epist 68. To the Pope of Rome Valent and Ursacius came to give an account of their treachery against St. Athanasius and to crave pardon for the same as Epiphanius heresie 68 relates Marcion being excommunicated by his own Bishop in Asia came to Rome to be absolv'd by Pâ—us the first as St. Epiphanius relates heresie 42 who depos'd Anthimus the Patriarch of Constantinople and establish'd in his place Mena but Agapetus the Pope as Liberatus affirms in his bâ—eviatâ— 62. and also Zonarias writiÌ„g the life of Iustinian Who depos'd Flavianus the Patrian of Antioch but Pope Danias Theodoret relates in his 5 â—â—â— c 23 who depos'd Polychronâ— Bishop of Ierusalem about â— year 434 but Pope Sixtus thâ— as appears in the acts of Sixâ— Who depos'd Dioscorus Paarch of Alexandria but the of Rome as Gelatius's Epistle the Dardanian Bishops expreâ—â— declares wherin he also relaâ— that Pope Iulius the first resloâ—â— Athanasius AlexaÌ„drinus Pauâ— Constantinopolitanus Marâ—lus Ancyranus to their own Biâ—â—opricks who re-establish'd Peâ— St. Athanasius successor be wrongfully depos'd by the Aâ—â—ans but Pope Damas as Sozoâ— â—us affirms in his 6 boâ—k c 9. who â—estor'd Theodoretus being also â—rongfullâ— depos'd by the Aâ—â—iâ—ns in the 2 Ephesian svnod but Pope Leo as is manifest by the first action of the General Council of Calcedon It was only the Popes of Rome â—hat had iâ— the Primitive Church their deputies and Vicar-generals in all foraign and remote Countryes viz. Anastasius Bishop of ThesaloÌ„ica in the Orient as aâ—pears by St. Leo's 84 Epist Potentius ' in Africk as the same Leo's 87 Epist declares Aâ—acius Patriarch of Constantinoâ—le in Egypt whom the Pope of Rome commanded to depose the Bishop of Alexandria as Gelatius relates in his Epist to the Dardanian Bishops Celestinus Pope of Rome Authoriz'd St. Cyrill of Alexandria to procâ—ed against Nestor then Bishop of Counstontinople as appears by Caelestinus's Ep to St Cyrill which is to be seen in St. Cyrill's 4. tome where also St Cyrill declares in his Epist to those of Counstantinople that the charge of that Bishoprick was committed unto himself by the Bishop of Rome Pope Hormisda instituted Salustius Bishop of Sevil his Vicar-general through Spain and Portugall as appears by the said Hormista's Epist to the same and St Gregory instituted Vigilius Bishop of Orleance to be his Vicargeneral thro' all France as may beseen in St Gregory's 4th book Epïst 52. It was also the Pope of Rome's Legates that were Presidents in the General Councils of the Primitivc Church as for example Hosius Vitus and Vincentius St Sylvester's Legates have been presidents in the General Council of Nice as Cedrinus in his Compendio Potius in his book de 7 Synodis and St Athanasius in his Epist to those who leade a solitary life do relate St Cyrill of Alexandria Pope Caelestinu's Legate preceded in the Council of Ephesias as Liberatus in his Breviate c 15. Evagrius in his first book c. 4 do write Paschasius Lâ—câ—â—sius and Bonifacius St. 〈◊〉 Legates were Presidents in the General Council of Calcedon aâ— is evident by the â— action of â—he â—ame Couâ—cil and also by S Leo's 47 Epist Archâ—dâ—mus and Philaxenâ—s Iulius the first 's Legates preâ—eâ—â—d in the General Council of Sardâ—s as St. Athanasius in his â— Apology and Theodoretus in his a book c 15 do declare It was only to the Pope of Rome the decrees and Canons of all General and famous Councils where sent in the primitive Church in order to be approv'd and confirm'd by his holynesse as for example it was to St. Sylvester Pope of Rome the Fathers of the Council of Nice sent a letter most humbly beseeching his holynesse to Ratifie and confirme the decrees of the said Council which letter is to be seen in the second Tome of the Councils The Fathers of this Council were in number 318 and sate in the year 325. The Fathers of the General CouÌ„cil of ConstaÌ„tinople being in number 150 assembled in the year 381 writ to Damas Pope of Rome by Cyriacus Eusebius and Prisâ—ianus Bishops praying him to aprove and confirme their Canons this Councils letter is to be seen in Theodoret's 5th book c. 9. The decrees of the General Council of Ephesâ—s wherein 200 Fathers sate in the year 431 were sent to Pope Celestinus in order to be confiâ—m'd as St. Cyrill's Epist testifies which Epistle is to be seen in the 3 Tome of the Councils The Fathers of the General Council of Calcedon being in number 630 and sate in the year 451 sent their Canons to Pope Leo in order to be confirm'd by him as appears by the said Council's Epistle to the same which is to be seen in the 4th Tome of the Councils The Fathers of the Milevian Council sent their CanoÌ„s to Pope Innocentius the first in the year 416 to be confirm'd as appears by this Council's Epistle which is to be seen in the 1 Tome of the CouÌ„cils The Fathers of the Council of Carthage sent their CanoÌ„s the year 356 to be confirm'd by Pope Stephen as is manifest by their own Epistle which is to be seen in St. Cyrill's 2 book and also in the first Tome of the Councils I might produce several other convincing proofs concerning this point but that I may be easie to the reader I will conclude only with these followiÌ„g Councils who sate in the Primitive Church and acknowledg'd in their very Canons the Pope of Rome's Supremacy viz. the 20 chap of the Council of Rome who sate in the year 324. The 3 chap of the 3. 4th Council of Rome who sate in the year 502. The 3 4th 9th Canon of the Council of Sardis wherein 376 Fathers were The 6th Canon of the General Council of Nice The 5 CanoÌ„ of the General Council of Constantinople The 1 2 3 16. Action of the General Council of Calcedon who sayes thus in the 16th we throughly consider â—ruly that all Prâ—macy chief honour is to be keept for the Arch Bishop of old Rome Chap 5 Proving that the Real Presence was believ'd by those of the Primitive Church The very words of Iesus Christ and also the Authentical Testimonyes of the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church do clearly affirm that Christ's true body and blood are Really and Substantially present in the holy Sacrament therefore this Doctrine was not newly brought-in since the Primitive Church the consequens is most certain as we shall see here-after